Brickipedia:Manual of Style/updates 2
This page serves as an archive for former votes and discussions about additions to the Manual of Style that were conducted at Forum:MOS proposals. LEGO.com or LEGO's? is called "LEGO's Description". On other pages it is called "LEGO.com Description". Shall we call it LEGO's, LEGO.com or anything else? 15:00, May 2, 2010 (UTC) :It really doesn't matter, since they both mean the same thing. A LEGO.com Description is technically LEGO's Description, so I guess it's whatever the person who adds that thinks. [[User:Construction Worker|'Construction']] [[User talk:Construction Worker|'Do you need help?']] 16:38, May 2, 2010 (UTC) * As I said wherever this originally came up, I personally use LEGO's as the description may not be from just LEGO.com- it could be from a magazine, book or somewhere else. Guess it doesn't really matter too much though. 04:54, May 3, 2010 (UTC) ** I think we should have a fixed header name for this, so it can fit better into the MoS. 11:44, May 3, 2010 (UTC) ***I always use LEGO.com, it seems more neutral. Ajraddatz Talk 13:30, May 3, 2010 (UTC) ***Agreed. I couldn't find a word explaining it, "professional" sounds good. 19:49, May 3, 2010 (UTC) *So what your saying is, LEGO.com is "professional"? This is a wiki, not a business. LEGO's is just as "proffessional" as LEGO.com. Plus, how is it neutral? LEGO's is more general, especially with what NHL said. [[User:Construction Worker|'Construction']] [[User talk:Construction Worker|'Do you need help?']] 20:30, May 4, 2010 (UTC) **LEGO's because it sound like they said it.--[[User:Agent Chase|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Chase|'Chase: ']] 20:35, May 4, 2010 (UTC) ***Ok, now that's just stupid (no offense). Everyone says LEGO's. =P [[User:Construction Worker|'Construction']] [[User talk:Construction Worker|'Do you need help?']] 20:37, May 4, 2010 (UTC) **False, I never say LEGO as plural. 20:48, May 4, 2010 (UTC) ***Sorry! I did not read it first. XD Sorry for the mix up.--[[User:Agent Chase|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Chase|'Chase: ']] 20:54, May 4, 2010 (UTC) ****I like using LEGO's if it's like they said it, but I do not like using LEGO's when refering to lots of LEGO Sets.--[[User:Agent Chase|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Chase|'Chase: ']] 21:03, May 4, 2010 (UTC) *****That's ok Chase. =P [[User:Construction Worker|'Construction']] [[User talk:Construction Worker|'Do you need help?']] 10:25, May 5, 2010 (UTC) :Is there any other possibility? Like... "LEGO Description" or something... 11:45, May 5, 2010 (UTC) ::How about "Official Description"? 04:23, May 6, 2010 (UTC) :::Nighthawk's idae sond good... -[[User:Mariofighter3|'Mariofighter3: ']][[User talk:Mariofighter3|''' Brickfliming now ]] 11:25, May 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::What about "Official LEGO Description"? That way we know its from LEGO (although, it is said in the template too...) Is that too long? 14:04, May 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::I think "LEGO's" is best. That's how the company describes it, and the users already know that this wiki is the official LEGO encyclopedia. Just my opinion, though. -Nerfblasterpro: 18:51, May 6, 2010 (UTC) ::Vote on it? 10:37, May 13, 2010 (UTC) :::Proper Use of the LEGO Trademark on a Web Site If the LEGO trademark is used at all, it should always be used as an adjective, not as a noun. For example, say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGO BRICKS". Never say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGOs" http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=fairplay regardless of what the company wishes people would use, the term LEGO's is often used by the Lego group themselves although in most if not all cases its used in material directed towards the American market, where as the European and Australasian markets typically if not always use LEGO for the singular and plural. My opinion is that LEGO's is a grammatical error. In response to NHL regarding "in case it's not from the website" then the source should be cited , for example Lego Magazine Description not LEGO'S Magazine DescriptionGladiatoring 10:06, July 20, 2010 (UTC) Vote Note- if a user has indicated that they like a particular name from comments above but has not made a vote below, their name has been added here with a * next to the name. If you are the user, feel free to remove your name from here, change it to another option, or to remove the * next to your name to indicate you have officially voted. This was done only to attempt to save time on voting, and these votes may not count if decided that they should not be used. LEGO's Description # Per above- just to cover it in case it's not from the website 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC) # * # * # Per Nighthawk. 08:22, July 20, 2010 (UTC) #[[User:Construction Worker|'''Construction]] [[User talk:Construction Worker|'Do you need help?']] 19:16, August 13, 2010 (UTC) LEGO.com Description # * # # # # LEGO Description # [[User:Clone Commander Fox|'Clone Commander ']][[User talk:Clone Commander Fox|'Fox']] 13:59, September 5, 2010 (UTC) Official Description # Changed vote due to what Gladiatoring has said above. When I added "LEGO's Description" before, I always just thought of LEGO as referring to The LEGO Company, not the toy itself, but it looks like this could be misinterpreted. 09:16, July 21, 2010 (UTC) # Kingcjc 22:29, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # Per Nighthawk. 19:24, August 13, 2010 (UTC) # 23:50, August 16, 2010 (UTC) Official LEGO Description }} 19:23, May 17, 2010 (UTC) :::It looks so much more prettyful though. Ajraddatz Talk 14:48, May 19, 2010 (UTC) Sorry, at present, I think I'd have to oppose. 00:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::I've added it to one page to see what you think. In my opinion, it make the infobox look more professional. That is just my opinion, though. 14:42, July 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::Sorry, still not a big fan of it, but I don't know why, and I can see arguments for having it like this. The only reason I can say against it is it does make the infobox a lot longer. 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC) Voting Continue using / # 06:46, October 7, 2010 (UTC) # 16:52, October 7, 2010 (UTC) # 23:56, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Use }} 23:22, September 26, 2010 (UTC) # 23:38, September 26, 2010 (UTC) # We're talking about the Template:Set, right? I think it's okay the way it is now. 16:42, October 7, 2010 (UTC) # ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 16:40, October 8, 2010 (UTC) Comments How about a comprimise where by the item number section is removed and the set number is added to the title. Just an idea please don't be mad. 16:30, September 27, 2010 (UTC) }} 13:05, October 5, 2010 (UTC) I don't think the problem would remain the same. Before I knew exactly what order the sections were supposed to go in, I was putting the LEGO.com description before the minifigure gallery and it always looked much better after I did. --TheGrandEditor 16:39, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Here are two examples of both set-ups. The one that follows the order is a really extreme example, and the the one that doesn't has just enough information in that order that it fits very well, but if it followed the order, would have a good deal of white space. http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/30042_Mini_Sub http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/7625_River_Chase TheGrandEditor 21:49, October 7, 2010 (UTC) * I agree. The gallery can't shrink, but the description can, so it makes sense. @BF2: The notes section is meant to go before either of these, see BP:MOS. 00:20, November 10, 2010 (UTC) }} 14:03, May 16, 2010 (UTC) :I'd say for parts okay, but for nothing else, as it is more a market as a reference page... 20:36, May 20, 2010 (UTC) Actually I have gotten over 1000 pics from there (boxes, sets, and set features) 20:37, May 20, 2010 (UTC) True, the page seems to be more of an eBay of LEGO more than anything. Sure, I can see it being a good resource for images, but the parts count is inconsistent with ours (since they don't include minifigures as parts), and we don't want someone seeing that and changing all the piececounts all over again, and the content of the set isn't really consistent with what we're going for. I would oppose, but defintiely source them for any images uploaded here from there of course. 00:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC) :I think it is a good source, but not be added into the external info. We wouldn't want to be "advertising" by mistake, but maybe sourcing for older sets. -Nerfblasterpro: 17:27, June 16, 2010 (UTC) Agree with NBP. Also, value packs. 17:29, June 16, 2010 (UTC) * I'd say it shouldn't be sourced unless there's no listing of a set on the usual site. 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC) :Value packs can be annoying because sometimes it doesn't list the amount of figures and you are forced to count every minifigure piece and accessory. If the set has 12+, you're in for a rough night. [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 20:36, August 25, 2010 (UTC) }} 13:13, June 8, 2010 (UTC) :You mean the amaount of a piece in a set? I guess behind should be okay... 15:08, June 8, 2010 (UTC) :Neutral. But did we agree to group appearances by color? I can see how it would be good, but it also has the potential for sets to be listed a lot of times, and I'm not sure if that's a great thing to have, but I don't have a better alternative. 00:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC) Well I think we should group parts by color below the infobox because it would be useful to see, and list how many of the part after the set it's in. 12:21, June 9, 2010 (UTC) }} 15:08, June 8, 2010 (UTC) I think that would be OKay. 16:38, June 8, 2010 (UTC) I would have to oppose this. I don't see what's wrong with a couple of extra lines for a lot more detail 00:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC) It's not like there's anything wrong with detail. If the minifigure has a name, keep it (example if I wanna know if Darth Vader appeared in a certain set and it doesn't have a picture, i'm not gonna know because it'll say "1" in minifigure count). [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 12:10, June 12, 2010 (UTC) }} 15:08, June 8, 2010 (UTC) Description, please. 16:37, June 8, 2010 (UTC) Neutral 00:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC) : Changed my mind- having two headings containing "Description" is pretty repetitive, I'd be happier seeing it as Details or something else like this. 09:16, July 21, 2010 (UTC) Details sounds better, but that just my opinion [[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge: ']] No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 07:31, August 9, 2010 (UTC) If it's details, isn't it still repetitive? 20:50, October 10, 2010 (UTC) :Well, it sounds better as "Description" and "LEGO.com Description". 12:16, October 11, 2010 (UTC) Voting Use Description # Use Details # 16:51, October 7, 2010 (UTC) # 06:46, October 7, 2010 (UTC) # # 14:34, December 5, 2010 (UTC) }} 01:16, June 10, 2010 (UTC) Why US only? I think we should have all prices because US only makes this wiki more centric to US then other parts of the world. US is not the main market, and thus we should use multiple to provide a broad perspective. :Because visitors can still click on the link to the see exact prices. Since quite alot in this wiki is American, I thought of only adding US $. And we can still make several other LEGO wikis in other languages, with the respective prices. 15:31, June 10, 2010 (UTC) ::And why are some users adding the Canadian Dollars (CA $) to articles (see 2010 and other articles)?? I thought we had voted only for US $, €, £ and Australian Dollars? 15:38, June 10, 2010 (UTC) :::Because this is an Encyclopedia, users like Ajraddatz and GG360 who live in Canada would add those prices to articles because we want to explain everything possible. It should be allowed for all. I added Netherlands prices well, because I found them in a catalog. 16:57, June 10, 2010 (UTC) ::::Umm no, actually only those four prices should be used per the MOS. Canadian prices were listed in some 2010 sets, because at the time Canadian prices were all we had, and as the MoS says (should say :/ I'm sure that it was voted on, I'll look it up later) if the price is not known in any of the four currencies, currencies that the price is known in may be listed. However, when the price is known in any of the four currencies, the other prices should be removed. 23:21, June 10, 2010 (UTC) :::::Okay! 12:35, June 11, 2010 (UTC) :Does that mean the CA $ should be removed from 2010? 13:53, June 11, 2010 (UTC) ::Yes 11:49, June 19, 2010 (UTC) :::Erm, why? 18:03, July 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::Since if there is an other price available we'll take that one instead of the CA $. 16:50, July 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::Erm, why? We are trying to be a complete LEGO encyclopedia here, right? 17:24, July 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Because we can't add every price in the world to this wiki. No offense, I like Canada. :) 13:05, July 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I say keep the canadian prices, cause what if there's a set exclusive to Canada and sold to me for a grand total of $5.99. It would make no sense to have the american prices. I understand about the whole "exclusives" thingys, but shouldn't we have the prices for most markets the set was sold in? LEGO has just changed most prices in Europe to just the same anyways, so we should add Canada as the fifth country. Besides, US, EU, AU, UK and CA cover most of the world. I have no idea about africa, but china's yen would make an exclusive set up to several thousand yen, and that could confuse some readers. [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 20:45, August 25, 2010 (UTC) Voting List US$ only # List the 4 prices from the MoS # 23:58, October 7, 2010 (UTC) # 14:33, December 5, 2010 (UTC) }} Should we have video game/movie appearances listed in infoboxes? Some alternatives I can think of are: * No * Yes (my brain was really working for those two :D) * Only when the minifigure has appeared in video games/movies only (ie when its tagged with something like ) * Yes, but have headings for video games/movies, such as in the example on the side Personally I'd just vote for "no", as the appearances are already listed at the bottom of the article anyway. Any opinions/other alternatives? 02:16, July 8, 2010 (UTC) I'd say #3, it looks cool. 19:03, July 8, 2010 (UTC) Number 2# I say it's distraction. [[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge: ']] No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 07:18, August 9, 2010 (UTC) :I propose to list everything in the appearances list of the Template:Minifigure (including videogame appearances), but without the headings and number of appearances next to it. That can be included in the Appearances section. So I choose Number #2. 09:25, July 20, 2010 (UTC) Voting Yes # Yes, but without headings, as he have got that in Appearances . 16:45, October 7, 2010 (UTC) # No Only when VG/movie only # 06:46, October 7, 2010 (UTC) # 23:59, October 7, 2010 (UTC) # 18:48, October 15, 2010 (UTC) Yes, but have headings }} 00:11, July 23, 2010 (UTC) * I think the non system Lego products should just have System removed from the header and replaced with what type of product they are for example ; in the set header LEGO and Furniture or LEGO and Play Wear & Weaponry and City and the info box to reflect this also but with out the LEGO. Gladiatoring 04:35, July 23, 2010 (UTC) ** In my opinion we should keep the "Toys" link or replace it with something similar, but not just write "System", since it is not System, so per above. 11:37, July 23, 2010 (UTC) @Glad: I'm certain that they do so I do that whenever I see otherwise. }} 04:38, August 9, 2010 (UTC) * I think that we could have it that sets that are 2-4 years since they are released we should have Included but includes before that. Just a suggestion [[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge: ']] No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 07:13, August 9, 2010 (UTC) * I like a time frame idea, like recent releases contains, as they're more widely available and people may be looking to see whats in them, and then older contained. Kingcjc 08:21, August 9, 2010 (UTC) * sets from 2010 should be written as present tense, 2009 and earlier past tense set xxx consists of xx pieces, including xx minifigure set xxx contents is xx pieces, including xx minifigure set xxx contained xx pieces, including xx minifigure set xxx consisted of pieces, including xx minifigure while it is acceptable to use the wording of "included" in number of pieces, it does not fit grammatically if more info is added after as in the minifigure eg; set xxx included xx pieces, containing xx minifigure I would explain further on the grammar rule applied here but I think you get the idea from the example Gladiatoring 08:55, August 9, 2010 (UTC) ::I prefer the past tense. 13:48, August 9, 2010 (UTC) I think that present tense sounds better because old sets such as ones released in 1980 can still be purchased today, and words like "consisted" and "included" gives the idea that the set is unavailable anymore. Another issue is that if we go by Gladiatoring's suggestion with 2010 being present tense, come 2011, we would have to change all 2010 sets to past tense and the same for every year after that, whereas having it in present tense would eliminate that issue. 13:05, August 10, 2010 (UTC) :But we can't use present tense in an article that is to be released. How does this sound? "The Minifigures Series 3 is a Collectable Minifigures set that is released in 2011." :S 13:25, August 10, 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to mention that I think we should use future tense for sets yet to be released. But, you make a point. Just like having to re-edit pages to make 2010 sets past tense in 2011, we would also have to change "will be released" to present tense, so either way we will have to re-edit pages, though going with the past tense option will double the amount. 13:44, August 10, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Glad.. ish.. if its currently on sale from LEGO, have it as present tense, if its not, past tense.. --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 07:20, August 11, 2010 (UTC) I disagree strongly. A set still "includes" the same things it used to include as it is. 21:22, August 13, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah, per Boba. 18:39, August 14, 2010 (UTC) It should always be present tense, because it's not like all of the sets were destroyed or something. [[User:Construction Worker|'Construction']] [[User talk:Construction Worker|'Do you need help?']] 14:06, August 16, 2010 (UTC) I've set up voting, if you don't think we're ready yet, feel free to take it off. (Providing there aren't several votes there already.) 20:27, August 16, 2010 (UTC) I'd say past, present and future IF that means that in sets you will only use present tense for what it includes-due to it still including that. 21:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC) Voting Have only present tense # 20:30, August 16, 2010 (UTC) # I agree with present tense, it's just easier. 23:42, August 16, 2010 (UTC) # Yeah, I think it's much easier. 04:01, August 17, 2010 (UTC) # [[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge: ']] No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 20:13, August 20, 2010 (UTC) Have present and future tense # Doesn't really make sense to me to say a set "has" stuff when it hasn't been released yet, and may not in the end 04:39, August 17, 2010 (UTC) # 11:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC) # 21:57, September 27, 2010 (UTC) Have present, past, and future tense # We may need all three at a point... -[[User:Mariofighter3|'Mariofighter3: ']][[User talk:Mariofighter3|''' Brickfliming now ]] 21:00, August 16, 2010 (UTC) #:Any more to go here? # Gladiatoring 12:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC) # --[[User:Lcawte|'''Lewis Cawte]] (Talk - Contact) 08:58, August 21, 2010 (UTC) # ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 14:36, August 22, 2010 (UTC) # 14:37, December 5, 2010 (UTC) }} 06:51, September 1, 2010 (UTC) :Well, i ignore lightsaber anyway as either way it would come up as a spelling mistake. Also, i've been looking if early sets which were from NA, and left them, however the image had it spelt the British way (from Canada probably) :S ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 08:44, September 1, 2010 (UTC) ::Keep set names as the original. If the original can't be found, have them UK (As MoS) 05:15, September 5, 2010 (UTC) Actually, it is on LEGO.com. Although you can't search it through LEGO.com you can search it on the internet and find the deleted product page. LEGO Lord 22:41, December 23, 2010 (UTC) }} Green Baseplate Background Pictures 21:52, November 17, 2010 (UTC) * Strong Oppose. They're perfectly legitimate images. They don't look blurry or messy to me, we have a large number of them, so removing them is a heap of work for no real gain. In the (almost) 4 years I've been here, this has been the first complaint I've ever heard about them. 21:59, November 17, 2010 (UTC) * Oppose. I completely understand what you are saying. They aren't the most professional ever, but they are not blurry. The LEGO background represents LEGO-what's wrong with LEGO on LEGO? And for Sand Green and Green, it is annoying, but those are new and we have white background pics for them. 22:01, November 17, 2010 (UTC) * Strong Oppose I don't see any problem with using green backgrounds, LEGO do of course take photographs with a myriad of colour backgrounds, and they always have. Could be the case that the white backgrounds they use are digitally enhanced from blue or green backgrounds as they do in catalogs, although aside from the point. I disagree the green backgrounds make the foreground blurry or messy, and don't see any need to change any pictures. Gladiatoring 22:04, November 17, 2010 (UTC) * Weak Support Actually, I agree that white backgrounds are more neutral. And we should have something that states that if an image with a white background is available, that image should be used. Requirement for that is that the white image is about the same quality as the green background one (if not, then better) and that the minifigure on the white background is really indentical to the minifigure with the green one. 14:03, November 20, 2010 (UTC) * That's what I was saying. LEGO Lord 23:34, December 22, 2010 (UTC) ** I've got nothing against having the white background images, and for the infobox image. yes I would prefer a white background image if it's around the same quality, But I don't agree with going on a crazy purge to hunt down and eliminate every green-background image, and either remove them from articles, or overwrite them with low-quality images, and ban all green-background images from the wiki. I don't see what's wrong with still having them in (some) articles, such as for alternate images- sometimes they can show a slightly different image, eg if the white-background has accessories and the green-background doesn't. 22:26, November 20, 2010 (UTC) * But what if I can find photographs of the Minifigures with/without weapons to replace the green background images with/without weapons? LEGO Lord 23:34, December 22, 2010 (UTC) * The main reason why I don't want Minifigure images with Baseplate backgrounds is because they aren't the Minifigure. LEGO Lord 22:39, December 23, 2010 (UTC) }} Parts included in this set Collectable Minifigures or Minifigures? 18:15, December 27, 2010 (UTC) But, LEGO itself calls it just plain "Minifigures". LEGO Lord 02:09, December 28, 2010 (UTC) :That's the logo. We had a discussion about capitalizing theme names, since they are capitalized in the logos, but they are just logos and not the gramatical correct way to write a name out. As far as I know it's only spelled "Minifigures" in the logo, nowhere else. 13:13, December 31, 2010 (UTC) We should definitely call it "Minifigures (Theme)", because the theme is called "Minifigures" by LEGO. All sites that call it "Collectable Minifigures" or "Collectible Minifigures" are wrong and fan made. Brickset and all other LEGO related sites that aren't affiliated with LEGO are wrong. If we strive to be the best LEGO recourse we should name it to the proper name. Perhaps you two should reconsider your oppose. LEGO Lord 19:34, December 31, 2010 (UTC) :Aren't we fan-made, too? :D Anyway, I get your point. You may be right, but I still think it's better the current way. But I'm not sure at the moment, rather a neutral than an Oppose. 18:22, January 1, 2011 (UTC) * From what I can see, LEGO only refers to the theme as Minifigures- the set names are "8xxx Minifigures Series x''", the logo says "minifigures", and the online Shop category is "Minifigures". So basically, '''support', becuase I think we should follow what LEGO calls the theme, not other fansites. 19:06, January 1, 2011 (UTC) ::Then again, they class other stuff as minifigures (the recent dacta sets, the collections), so should we start to add them? Also, for more LEGO names, look forward to me looking at this thing tonight or tomorrow. ---- Kingcjc 19:09, January 1, 2011 (UTC) }} Colours for infoboxes 01:32, January 2, 2011 (UTC) Um, its been this way a while...It also helps identify a theme at a glance and looks nicer :) Don't you get bored of white, black and dark blue always on the screen? ---- Kingcjc 01:39, January 2, 2011 (UTC) I don't get bored of white, black and dark blue. The more consistent the more professional. And I know that we have had them for a while now, but just because of the effort placed into colouring infoboxes doesn't mean we need to keep it this way. And who cares if it is easier to know what theme it is from, I don't believe it suits the article, it makes it look like junk. The colour scheme for them is disgusting. And I am sorry if I am being highly too critical. LEGO Lord 02:14, January 2, 2011 (UTC) * Per BF2+Cjc... *sigh* anything else color-wise to complain about? I think that's every single colour-related thing now ;) 02:17, January 2, 2011 (UTC) I can't see what's so disgusting. Don't say who cares-because some people DO CARE. And professional does not equal boring. 02:16, January 2, 2011 (UTC) I didn't really say that professional equals the level of being boring. And I say it looks disgusting because of the colour scheme. Brickipedia uses greyish-pink and greyish-tan as colour schemes. Just look at Wikipedia, they are only one colour, plus aren't they professional. Most of you may not know where I am going with this, sorry for complaining. LEGO Lord 02:35, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :If i'm to be honest here, I don't even notice them much these days. Plus where do we use greyish-pink and tan? ---- Kingcjc 12:04, January 2, 2011 (UTC) ::Every wiki with such kind of infoboxes colour them in several colours. Why on earth should we change it here? Just keep the colours where they are. Strong Oppose. Oh, and there are still quite a lot themes that don't have any colours. 13:24, January 2, 2011 (UTC) }} Past or Present Tense (again) 18:14, December 27, 2010 (UTC) :Oppose All fictional-based wikis I've been on write their character descriptions from past tense, I don't really see a need for it to be different. It gets into the issue of dead characters. You couldn't write Yoda, Anakin or Obi-Wan with present tense, becuase they're dead, and dead specifically in the LEGO Universe (evidenced by the appearance of their ghosts in the video games). And if we had present for living, past for dead, you'd have to have discussions as to what constitutes dead? For example, Luke Skywalker's dead by at least 130 ABY in Star Wars, so do we call him dead or alive? 10:59, January 28, 2011 (UTC) * If the Lego Minifigures of Yoda and Anakin are really dead, then why can I still buy them at the store in their non-ghost forms? GhostUser 22:18, February 3, 2011 (UTC) **??? By that argument, no fictional character is dead becuase toys are being produced of them, which doesn't make sense. 05:26, March 8, 2011 (UTC) ***In the storyline characters may be dead (thus need to be written in past tense), but The LEGO Company can still release sets with previous forms, sets aren't released chronologically and in temporal relation to events of a storyline. 15:57, March 8, 2011 (UTC) Vote Use Present Tense # Use Past Tense # Per above comments, and present tense sounds so... wrong. 05:26, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # Per reasoning of NHL. 15:57, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # For Minifigures, yes, past works best. --- Why So Serious? -- Kingcjc 16:04, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # Lego lord 15:35, March 8, 2011 (UTC) }} Too many links 00:49, February 17, 2011 (UTC) *Maybe you're right, but many other wikis rarely have links. Lego lord 00:52, February 17, 2011 (UTC) *But do we really need links to the same article twice? ** I agree linking to the same thing twice in a sentence for example would be wrong. For this, I like Wookieepedia's idea (quote from their MOS): A subject should be linked once upon its first appearance in the article's infobox, once upon its first mention in the article's intro, and once upon its first mention in the article's main body. I'd be ok if we adopted that, if we allow everything to have a link in the minifigure gallery template as well. 01:23, February 17, 2011 (UTC) *Okay it's fine, just a small thought. Lego lord 01:25, February 17, 2011 (UTC) * Agreed, adopting sounds good. 13:33, March 4, 2011 (UTC) Vote Proposed policy: A subject should be linked once upon its first appearance in the article's infobox, once upon its first mention in the article's lead section, once upon its first mention in the article's main body, and throughout the minifigure gallery (if applicable). Adopt the above policy # 09:30, March 6, 2011 (UTC) # 10:23, March 6, 2011 (UTC) # 16:55, March 6, 2011 (UTC) # 04:03, March 7, 2011 (UTC) Do not adopt the above policy }}